Danus
I don't know, some of your opinions on what the bible says, that I have read anyway, seem pretty sound.
Thank you.
It's your general opinions about Christianity and denominations that I find too broad to pin down and not specific enough to digest in any real way to comment.
Christianity is divided into denominations. A denomination is,
“a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.†(Oxford Dictionary)
Consider John 17:17-23.
Jesus is the word (John 1) and the truth (John 14) being spoken of, not the bible. Sanctification is in Jesus (1 Cor 1:30). Note verse 21. Jesus’ prayer for unity. Unity like he has with the Father. And the reason? That the world might know that the Father sent the Son. And note back in verse 18. Those who are in Christ are sent by their Lord Jesus Christ into the world for this very purpose. To be a witness for the Son, whom the Father sent. Our primary reason to be here in relation to one another is our common worship of God and building each other up. Is division an expression of common worship and building?
Consider 1 Corinthians.
Paul makes a clear statement concerning division in the whole of this letter. Division is the same as following men. The actions of division are out of the flesh. That it ain’t supposed to be.
Paul does make the point in 11:17-19 that a purpose for division is to reveal the ones who are approved among them. But in verse 17 he clearly shows that the fact it is necessary in this Church, ain’t supposed to be. I know Christians who use these verses as an excuse for denominationalism and for Church hopping.
The Greek word translated “division†(NIV) in verse 18 is schisma. It means division in the sense of cutting in two.
Consider Galatians 5:19-20
The Greek word in verse 20 that’s translated “dissensions†(NIV) is dichostasia. It means division in the sense of standing as two. I was going to use 1 Cor 3:3, as it’s so obviously clear. But the use of the same word there is only in the byzantine compilation. I personally favor the Byzantine compilation (not in the sense of KJV Onlyism). But I don’t know how you feel about it.
Division is a work of the flesh, something out of the fallen human nature. The items mentioned by Paul in Galatians 5, are they sins? A sin is a missing of the mark. A transgression is a walking off the path. Division is both a sin and a transgression. For those who are New Testament Only Christians, one doesn’t need the Law to see the obvious. Division is a sin on the order of “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition,†(NIV). If those things aren’t sin, then neither is division.
Is a denomination the same as a division? Yes and no. In 1 Corinthians, division is described as something within a single “churchâ€. A denomination is an autonomous division within Christianity that has its own organization, its own leadership, its own doctrinal standard, its own adherents. A denomination is a “church†in its own right. The divisions described by Paul were in no way autonomous. They were connected to a true “churchâ€. If a division is considered sin, a denomination is just more of the same, but in a different venue.
Denominations as autonomous branches of Christianity are divisions within Christianity. Ergo, Christianity is divided. Obviously so. So much so, that being thus divided is a characteristic of Christianity. The character of Christianity, in the sense of a major character trait, is denominational.
If the major character trait of Christianity, very visible character trait, is denonominationalism, then Christianity is human in nature. Human in that Christianity, as a collection of human adherents, is following the flesh, the fallen human nature, rather than the Spirit.
It is the human mind that chooses whether to walk by the flesh or by the Spirit. So rather than say that Christianity is a Satanic religion deep in apostasy (there is another thread wherein apostasy has been defined according to 1 Tim 4:1), I say that Christianity is a human religion, a man-made religion, in which the humans involved have chosen to walk by the flesh, rather than by the Spirit. Ergo, Christianity is a man-made (not Satan-made) religion. As such it’s only difference from other like religions, such as modern Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism; is in the term Christianity. A term of denotation for the religion as a whole. A term derived from a term used only three times in the bible.....Christian. But Christianity has one advantage over other man-made religions. The potential to choose as a religion to walk by the Spirit. Apart from Christ, that isn’t possible. The other religions can only hope to continue in their man-made status.
I won’t go into my view here on the three mentions of the term Christian in the New Testament. It is irrelevant.
To be clear.
I distinguish between the religion and individual adherents. Especially those who are in Christ. I believe those who are in Christ are inadvertently adhering to the religion, through deception. Those who are in Christ are being deceived into thinking that one autonomous branch or another, or a specific group of autonomous branches (like Evangelical Protestantism), of Christianity represents or follows Jesus Christ on the earth. Only Roman Catholicism overtly acknowledges such a relationship. Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestant denominations acknowledges the relationship only in their distinctions based on their doctrines. Together with its practice of closed communion, Roman Catholicism shows itself to be the uber expression of autonomous denominationalism. Not the expression of “the True Church†as it claims.
Good fences do make good neighbors. In the natural realm alone. Robert Frost was right to point that out. But I was under the impression that those who are in Christ are part of the supernatural realm also. That those who are in Christ are part of a family, not just neighbors. Am I mistaken?
Do good walls of separation between the rooms in the House of God make good family members? Should I be building a better wall? Instead of thinking there may be a way to tear down the walls of division? A way that reconciles, rather than divides?
What of unity?
This is where I fall short. I’ve emphasized the fact of division, but I haven’t given sufficient thought to a way reconciliation. Simply because before there can be reconciliation, there must first be an acknowledgment of the division.
The way of reconciliation in Christianity is reconciliation over a new doctrinal standard that certain denominations (or a new mega denomination) can live with, or reconciliation over as little a doctrinal standard as possible. Either way, the emphasis is still on the doctrinal standard, the cause of denominationalism to begin with.
I think it has to do with being in Christ and in Spirit. Endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit, Paul said. Endeavoring to keep the unity of the doctrinal standard obviously isn’t working. So I know for sure that unity isn’t a matter of doctrine.
I know one could surmise from that, that there is no true or right doctrine, there is no true or right way to worship. But that can’t be either. That’s just people doing what’s right in their own eyes. There is already a ready made standard of doctrine. Not doctrinal standards derived from biblical interpretation. Rather, the bible itself is the doctrinal standard.
The bible even has its own hymnal in the Psalms. Now if we consider the bible to be inspired in a way that is more than as poetry is inspired, then the Psalms are certainly more inspired than the poetry found in the Christian hymnbooks. Do we need Sermonizers to explain the bible from their own point of view? Or would the congregation be better served if they just heard it straight from the horses mouth, as it were? From the bible itself as read apart from the explanation of a sermon? Who leads in the worship of God? Does a Worship leader or Jesus Christ?
Anyway, that’s how I see it.
If you want to talk about denominations or the Trinity, I'm cool with that, but if we do that here I'll have to sell you this thread you say I own.....$2.75 paid in cash to me and no checks.
As far as talking about the Trinity, I’ve only recently changed my view on the matter. I’ve been too preoccupied with other matters to give it much thought.
As far as denominationalism, if I thought I could not tie it in with the subject of this thread, I wouldn’t have bothered. But it does tie in. So I wrote what I wrote.
Christians, so long as they continue in denominationalism, are walking in sin themselves, and really have no ground to judge each other, let alone judge those who are exterior to Christianity, people like Dan Savage and their message. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Dan Savage was raised a Catholic, in Catholic schools. He knows and uses what he learned to the full advantage of the gay agenda.
I can’t deny what is obvious to me. Any more than anyone else can deny what is obvious to them. The existence of Christian denominationalism, if Christianity is the expression of the Body of Christ, is evidence that God didn’t send Jesus Christ. If Christianity is not the expression of the Body of Christ, which I don’t believe it is, then it’s just an expression of itself. And the witness today of God sending the Son is an individual matter.
I’ve been known to have been wrong before. But not about things so obvious. I am looking into alternatives. I’m can’t see myself wasting my time on the matter of denominationalism much longer. It’s a matter that concerns adherents of Christianity. Let them deal with it. I’ve said my piece. For months now.
NC
